I agree, corrected myself in a post below. I shouldn't have added that part as a factor nm
Posted By: MeMT on 2008-11-19
In Reply to: I'm not Muslim, but... - Marmann
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I agree, Lu. Thanks for your post. I added one
.
I agree with part of your post.
I believe most people WANT socialism because they think it will save them and protect them from all the bad things in the world. Just think, free healthcare, free gas, free homes.
I could go on and on, but I have to leave. Pooch wants to go play in the garage. If she doesn't get her way, she starts moaning and groaning. 
I have no clue why you added this Bush rant to my post...
George Bush did not single-handedly send troops to war. There is that little ol thing called Congress who have to vote to allow him to go to war, he can't just do it on his own. And guess what...they DID. Democrats and Republicans alike. I just don't understand why some Americans don't understand THAT. Blame it on George Bush, like he was King or something. He did not do it alone. And you are right, I will NEVER accept that ANY soldier died for no reason. How arrogant of anyone to even suggest such a thing. Our men and women in uniform go where they are sent and they do their duty. Shame on ANY American who would publically say those brave young men and women died in vain, I don't care what their politics are. To me, that reeks.
I also do not know why it is so easy for some Americans to totally ignore the many reasons we went into Iraq. Have you ever actually read the Iraq resolution passed by Congress? I seriously doubt it. Hussein was in violation of so many UN resolutions it would take a ream of paper to list them. And he did finance and harbor terrorists. One of the perps of the Achille Lauro hijacking lived out his miserable life there being given free medical care and a free ride by the Hussein government. Zarqawi had his little terrorist training camp up in Northern Iraq for a year before we went in. One of Hussein's higher ups met with Mohammed Atta a couple of months before 9-11. What do you think they were talking about? The weather?
I don't believe I even mentioned the President in my post. I believe we went into Iraq for a good reason, we had been hit and we had to hit back harder. We did so in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have not had another major attack since that happened. Wonder why that is...????
My point is, the President is not singly responsible for the war in Iraq. The Congress is just as responsible. So when you start to lay blame and malign the names of good men and women who died for something they believed in, even if you don't....you should spread the blame evenly. Get off the Hate Bush train and back into reality.
I think we agree for the most part
however, from what I heard of the tapes I don't think this teacher was just throwing his opinions out there. He was teaching them as fact. I think even if he was transferred to a political science class then he would still need to tone down his rhetoric several notches. You can teach any class from an objective point of view with very little effort. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, I think teachers need to be very careful about much of their own opinion they teach to students.
For the most part I agree with you.
But I admit I am a hard-liner so this is my opinion and my opinion only before anyone pounces on me.
I believe life begins at conception and I believe abortion at any point is murder. In this modern age, I see no reason, other than perhaps the mother's life being at stake, where an abortion might be acceptable and that decision, I believe is for the mother and the mother only to make. I will not speak to the issue of rape or incest, I cannot imagine what a horrible experience that might be. I have never been in the position, thank God, to have to make that decision. Anyone who has sex should, and likely does, know that pregnancy is a possibility whether or not they use birth control so if they aren't willing to accept that responsibility, maybe they should not have sex. I know somewhat of what I speak. I had 3 unwanted pregnancies in my early years. All 3 are living and I love them dearly and cannot imagine what life would be like without them. I am thankful I didn't murder them although at the time it was beyond me how I was going to care for them.
I would agree with part of your statement...
however, the major difference is that there is Congress between the "radical Christian Texan" and those weapons. There is no such in-between for Amhadinejad. In other words, no checks and balances. If he decides to nuke Israel, it is a done deal. He doesn't have to go to anyone for permission. That is the big difference. Yes, Democrats did vote for the use of force in Iraq, just like the Republicans did. But I seriously doubt, unless we were attacked first, that Congress would vote to allow the use of nukes on another country, and then it would be a completely last ditch choice. I have at least that much faith in Congress on both sides...there is a lot of rhetoric thrown back and forth, jibes, political posturing...but when it came down to a decision like that...I have faith that Democrats AND Republicans would not allow the use of nukes even if the "radical Christian Texan" wanted to. Which he does not. He just does not want Ahmadinejad to have them, and frankly, those countries closer to Iran than we are should be very afraid unless they are Muslim states. It would be harder for him to get to us than it would be for him to get to them. And if he hit one, you do know who they would turn to first for help, don't you? The good old US that they hate and despise. WWII all over again. They didn't like us much before WWII, loved us when we were pulling their fat out of the fire, the instant they were safe again they were yelling "get out of our country." Same old, same old. It is not like the loved us when Clinton was President and hate us now. They love us when they need us and hate us when they don't. History bears that out.
As to overpopulation...what is the answer to that? Like China did, limit the number of children a couple can have? Use abortion for population control? Force people to be sterilized? I am not ranting, just asking the question.
As to the global warming thing...there is so much information out there to both sides of that issue, I frankly am not sold on either side yet. I am still researching that one. I do believe that some of Gore's assertions don't hold water, like catastrophe is imminent...I can't find a lot to support that. But I am open-minded and I continue to research.
I agree. It should be part of the process. Because he...
is as responsible as she is, more so in the case of an adult and a minor. But as long as it is about money with the clinic...they are not going to do anything to interfere with the cash cow. It's about the money.
I agree with part of what your friend says....sm
"the policy of letting big financial institutions play fast and loose with people's money by bundling a whole lot of complicated things together (including worthless mortgages) and selling them to others."
She's rather naive to believe her liberal professors, though, that blame it squarely on the republicans.
Liberal democrats in Congress and those rich liberals running all those big financial institutions, are 90% to blame. Period.
She needs to stay in school a while.
Part of the original post by Anon.
If memory serves, the poster did advocate looting and was encouraging it.
A question about the religion part of your post.
In an attempt to verify your claim that the ACLU will go to court against a Christian who wants to wear a cross, I essentially found myself on a dead-end wild goose chase. I found a number of ACLU cases challenging the display of cross on public land (one of the more fascinating ones described below) and on various other forms of displays, but could not find a case challenging an individual's right to wear a cross. Could you please cite the case you are referring to?
I also am interested to know more about your protest of discrimination against Christians "going nowhere near the white house." Yes, our founding fathers were Christian, but their wisdom of separating church and state in the First Amendment has been addressed already this morning in a separate post. Nobody is lumping all Christians into the same barrel.
Our other First Amendment guaranteed right ensures freedom of speech for all individuals, including the ones who take issue with the more extreme forms of politicized Christianity, just as you take issue with the extreme politicized forms of Islam. It is fair if those people speak out regarding their desire to see constitutional principles upheld in the face of what they perceive to be theocratic creep and crawl into mainstream politics, particularly where universal laws are at issue. In terms of sharing the gospel, most definitely you have that same freedom of speech guaranteed under the First Amendment, as do those who find it exceedingly intrusive and offensive.
I am wondering if you somehow have confused a person's body with an 822-foot mountain top? Is this the ACLU case you refer to?
Mount Soledad Cross controversy court battle from 1989 to present day. The cross, 43 feet tall from base to tip, sits atop the highest peak (822 feet) in San Diego (72 feet above sea level), making it a highly visible landmark. The history of the court battle is really quite fascinating. Here is it in a nutshell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad_cross_controversy
Since 1989, the Mt. Soledad Cross has been involved in a continuous litigation regarding its legal status. According to the interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and No Preference Clause of the California Constitution by the opponents of the cross, it is illegal to display a religious symbol, such as a Christian cross, on public land, as it demonstrates preference to a specific religion and thus violates the separation of church and state. Judges have sided with plaintiffs on multiple occasions and ruled that the cross is illegal and has to be removed or sold to the highest bidder. Defenders of the cross have explored several opportunities to circumvent judges' decisions. In the most recent development, the land under the cross was transferred to the federal government. Critics of the cross allege that, even if the transfer itself is legal, it does not solve the fundamental problem (the cross is no more legal on federal land than on city or state land). The latest decision was rendered July 31, 2008, with appeal required to be filed within 60 days of the decision.
This post part of which I have copied from the conservative board is over the line
Well, gotta tell ya all..I have tried to take the conservative posts and laugh about them..but, however, being a descendant of the Holocaust, having lost great-great family members and still having a beloved friend who was a survivor, with tattoos on her arms and memories to tell all...I TOTALLY STRIKE OUT AT THIS POST..CALLING ME A NAZI IS THE MOST WORSE THING ANYONE COULD CALL ME..AND IM AM MOST DEFINITELY GOING TO CONTACT THE MONITOR AND ADMINISTRATOR..THIS IS UNCALLED FOR..THIS ATTACK IS IGNORANT..These ignorant people throw around genocide and nazi and THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HECK THEY ARE EVEN POSTING ABOUT..
**At least on these boards the two-initialed Nazi is allowed get away with her genocide of anything conservative, but that's not helping the post count on the board at all.**
I should have added at the end - sm
"Oh say it ain't so Joe" She hit it dead on when she said that statement.
I guess these people have to be added to
the list of liars that includes Pres. Bush don't we....if this was all a BIG LIE then the dems were in on it too LOL
Too bad we added that skanky red state
god was added to the pledge of allegience
in the 1950s, during the Red scare, it wasn't originally written that way.
Not fair, gourdpainter. The Democrats added a lot of...
pork on their own, and dedicating a percentage of whatever payback might come out of this directly to ACORN would have been in it too, had the Republicans not held their ground that it be removed. This plan came from Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke, not "the Republicans." Paulson is a RINO and I have no clue what Bernanke's political affiliation is. If the ranking Democrats had held THEIR ground and all their folks with them, it would not have passed either, THEY have the majority. The Democrats pushed this harder than the Republicans...they didn't even involve the house Republicans until the last minute. So you can't lay this at the feet of "the Republicans."
I used to be a Repub, and when they added anti-abortion to
(And I'll never go back.)
No big loss. That poster added nothing of substance and sounded like he/she is a
troll from the conservative board. 
actually, it is not a factor
in my voting choice. Progressives can understand human fraility. As we all know, in this sexy-sexy business of medical transcription, one can face some rompin' stompin, fierce temptations. John Edwards went way past the mark with the baby and the coverup and all. Look at the man who replaced Elliott Spitzer. He 'fessed up right away and no one ever speaks of it anymore.
Credibility Factor
Wow, if my in-laws (in their 80s) knew that they were looked upon like that, I'd get a black eye (and deserve it) Incidentally, they could do it, too. They travel abroad, work out, all that stuff.
Maybe we should get a little sampling of how many fossilized 70YOs there are out there. I'm embarrassed for you.
It also seems to me that anyone who could endure the worst imaginable torture for 5 years must be made of something.
Is that the best ya got?
Because the rumor factor has taken this to mean
nm
Here is where that comes from......fear factor
Brad Sherman is right....sorry bunch of cowardly people we put in there who brown-nose out of nothing more than fear that they feed on with each other. Nothing written in cement.....just the fear factor!
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/
actually he says that would not be a qualifying factor -
I've never imposed a litmus test on Supreme Court nominees
Q: Could you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on Roe v. Wade?
McCAIN: I would never, and have never in all the years I've been there, imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the Court. That's not appropriate to do.
Q: But you don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?
McCAIN: I thought it was a bad decision. I think that decision should rest in the hands of the states. I'm a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test. They should be judged on their qualifications. I will find the best people in America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.
Q: Even if it was someone who had a history of being for abortion rights?
McCAIN: I would consider anyone on their qualifications. Someone who has supported Roe v. Wade, that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.
Source: 2008 third presidential debate against Barack Obama Oct 15, 2008
Trust factor
You know, Sam, I don't know if Obama is trustworthy or not. I don't know him and I don't know John McCain. I think we would all do well to keep an eye on the direction of our country. I really, really thought McCain would end up in the White House but with the landslide electorate vote I don't see any way that could possibly happen now. Maybe it would be a good idea to get to work on doing away with the electorate. The popular vote should be enough. It appears to me that elections are decided really just by a few states.
Sooooooo I'm not really sure that we have time to worry about whether we trust the new president or not. I don't trust any politicians but the cards have been dealt and there's plenty we all need to do.
I stand corrected
You are right. I did apply a double standard to a point. Everybody has a past. We've all done things we're ashamed of. My beef was with how he made it all seem like a joke, but again you are right.
I apologize...
Yes, but the difference is, no one corrected YOU.
x
Stand corrected
No, I'm advocating blowing a dictator away who is genocidal and dangerous and has committed war crimes for which he is on trial for now, and the evidence is overwhelming. Big difference there.
You are so right. I stand corrected.
What you said and every other bad thing in the world. Bad Bad BAD Democrats.
Bush won't send any of his kids to die for his war. Only other people's kids. BTW, LoL at margarita bimbos.
Speaking of margaritas, people convicted of felonies (such as DUI) aren't allowed to vote in the United States.
But they're allowed to be political candidates and sometimes they become President and Vice President. (Bush: Arrested for DUI and again for possession of cocaine. Cheney: Arrested twice for DUI).
The loophole is they probably weren't technically convicted. They would have been if they were everyday normal people and not privileged and rich, but how ironic is that? :-(
Ok, I stand corrected....
Thanks, however of small note (and this is only me) I don't consider the people on Good Morning America to be news people. Yes, I know they are reading the news. I used to watch it until it just seemed to be too much like The View or Regis & Kathy (okay you see how long its been since I've seen that show). I've just never heard anyone on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or those main ones (or even our local news) tell her to get out. They were all for her to keep going. But I do stand corrected and thank you.
I stand corrected
nm
No, but I corrected myself because I know they're
nm
He later corrected to $250K
He knows the middle class. I'm sure you make under $250K so why are you splitting hairs?
Because I was corrected a few times on here, that's why. (nm)
.
Yes, I stand corrected
They just mentioned it on the news, but I didn't hear the justification for it. It seems counterintuitive to me to tax the shrinking number of employers who are providing insurance. I would think they would be providing tax credits if the goal is to get every American insured.
Yep, the "if its true" factor.
Our next President WILL be a huge factor
xx
I saw clips of that on The O'Reilly Factor.
I was cracking up. "Your name is Joy. You're supposed to be joyful." LOL! If she wants to be on a TV show like that, she really does need to lighten up and at least add to the conversation instead of just acting like she has a severe case of PMS.
Does the calculator also factor in lies!
xx
Yep...I stand corrected. He went into rehab after it....
he was addicted to prescription drugs. He was driving under that influence...not drinking. As you said, he is still in the House.
okay - I was wrong and I stand corrected. nm
x
The running mate will be an important factor
I think McCain really needs a good running mate. I really liked Tancreda when he was running. A lot of my viewpoints aligned with his. I also like Ron Paul or Colin Powell (not sure if Powell is Dem or Rep), so if he picks a decent running mate who is "on the ball" about foreign and domestic issues (I think McCain is going to need all the help he can get) he may stand a good chance of winning, otherwise it's going to be hard to know who they will choose to be president.
The health care costs are the factor that
takes UAW hourly wages from $28 to $73, along with their other benefits, pension, matching funds and the like. The national insurance coverage was what I was referring when talking how the new administration may or may not impact this situation. The nonunion figures I gave are for the US Toyota workers. I don't think they can take advantage of the national insurance coverage the global Toyota workers have, but I could be mistaken. The more we talk about this, the more interesting it becomes. I wish I knew where to go to get reliable information on this.
Oh I sorry, yeah, sure the people are the deciding factor
Yeah, right people really are the ones who decide who the president will be. Yeah, right, okay.
Obama could produce FEAR FACTOR!
It's funny how Obama can ramble on and on and on about all the Americans out of jobs; however, he refuses to enforce the E-Verify bill already in place to make sure NO illegals continue to take their jobs, which they are. He couldn't give a rats butt about those jobs. The proof is in his lack of doing anything about the illegal invasion in this country. He's very good at using all his fear tactics with all his big adjectives and descriptives out the ying yang, but he hasn't done ONE SINGLE THING to stop American employers from giving illegals American citizens' jobs.
He's just wanting that stimulus package passed so bad, he'll continue to get on TV and promote more fear....................
And for those posters who said he has taken ALL THE PORK OUT DAYS AGO, get in the real world, will ya? He JUST said on his little announcement that there is PORK that needs to be taken out STILL. All I hear now is blah, blah, blah, blah.................
He can sign 5 executive orders in his first 3 days of office but he can't enforce E-Verify! That big fat smile doesn't make me melt and it doesn't fool me either. He ain't got what it takes.
Now all you O lovers can flame away........... then tell me why he can't enforce E-Verify! It's a law ya know!!! You'll probably have to look it up first.
If the profit factor (insurance companies)...
...is removed, we will save a TON of money.
I stand corrected on the Vietnam number
but people who say this is "another Vietnam" and a quagmire is also an erroneous statement.....1,700 is a far cry from 58,000, although EVERY life lost in the fight for freedom is very valuable and not to be taken lightly and I don't think anybody does.....
I stand corrected - sheesh! who can you believe anymore
I'm totally confused with everything going on now adays. I don't know truth from smears. You would think if someone is actually putting their name to something they would be telling the truth due to serious outcomes of false accusations.
So how can we tell if something we hear on TV, radio or internet is true or not?
Makes me just not want to vote anymore and turn off the TV and put my head in the sand and ignore all going on. I just don't know what to believe anymore.
Well, your erstwhile cohorts corrected my typo...so....
however, my point was more directed at the progressive. Your attitude toward unwed mothers is about as far from progressive as I have ever seen....?
Amanda - I stand corrected - thank you - see message
When I'm wrong I'll admit it and this time I'm wrong. That is in such bad taste.
If parents want to dress their kids in political figures that's one thing (though I think the kids would rather be ghosts, witches, princesses, etc) but to try and make a political statement and use the excuse that its Halloween and in good fun is just in bad taste (IMO). I find it equally offensive no matter who it is.
I think its bad taste and think everyone should take down everything. I find it just as disgusting as I found the remark Hillary said about staying in because an assassination could happen. When you talk about death of people that just gets to me.
So Amanda thank you, I do stand corrected and am humbled. There are McCain supporters who do the same as Obama supporters.
What happened to decency in America and leave the halloween costumes to kids and people going to parties.
Heard the same blather from the Oreilly rumor factor
the NY Times, Rasmussen, Gallup, etc., all in response to his dive in the ratings, taking third place behind KO and RM on MSNBC and AC on CNN. "They MUST be rigged," he blustered in protest. You don't like polls? Fine. Check out the electoral map.
http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/
The 'it' factor: Let's give Obama a change, at least...
the last 8 years were not good years.
Isn't charisma and attractiveness in all fields of life a major component for success? Besides all other qualifications?
|
